Sarasota County changes 2050 growth plan

Published: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 at 2:28 p.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 at 10:23 p.m.

SARASOTA COUNTY - The overhaul of Sarasota County's growth management rules for rural areas began Wednesday with changes that will usher in more strip mall-style commercial development and similar houses while weakening requirements for open space.

County commissioners voted unanimously to approve seven revisions to the 2050 growth plan, originally designed to encourage more compact, walkable developments that preserve large tracts of green space while clustering a variety of housing styles around a town center.

The County Commission also set the stage for more 2050 changes, voting to hold a public hearing on 17 other amendments to the plan.

Growth control advocates said the revisions approved Wednesday will make Sarasota County a less desirable place to live. But supporters said they preserve the principles of good urban planning while allowing developers more leeway to meet market demands.

“I'd like to have 2050 have a real chance to work because I like the basic tenets of it,” said Commissioner Charles Hines. “But it has to be flexible so it will work, and what we've just done right here, I think, allows for that flexibility.”

One of the most significant changes approved Wednesday is to the commercial development regulations in 2050. Landowners will be able to move their shopping centers to major roads on the periphery of a development, a shift back to strip centers and away from downtown-style “New Urbanist” communities.

Critics said the change goes against the concept of creating more convenient, walkable developments that minimize congestion on major roadways by offering commercial pockets inside neighborhoods.

“With the commercial center on the edge, you will have more traffic and more cars on the road,” said Lourdes Ramirez, a neighborhood activist who is running for a county commission seat.

But even Commissioner Nora Patterson, the strongest advocate on the commission for preserving 2050, said the village center rule “was always a little questionable” and voted to discard it.

The former owner of a gardening store on Osprey Avenue, Patterson said she understands the argument that businesses need drive-by traffic.

Commissioners also loosened a 2050 provision forcing developers to immediately record a conservation easement on a portion of their land.

Instead of a 1,000-acre conservation easement on large “village” projects, developers can set aside 750 acres initially and decide later where the additional 250 acres will be preserved.

County planners noted in a report that the change could lead to a more “piecemeal” approach to conservation that is less beneficial to the environment. Large, unbroken tracts of land are generally more desirable for preservation, and if the final phases of a development are not completed there is no guarantee the additional 250 acres will be preserved.

The commission also reduced the number of housing styles required in 2050 communities, allowing developers to build more identical homes derided by some as “cookie cutter” and unattractive.

Smaller “hamlet” developments will now be required to have two housing styles instead of three, while larger village developments can have five housing styles instead of six. Additionally, individual neighborhoods within a village must now have three housing styles instead of five and up to 75 percent of the homes in a neighborhood can be one housing style, instead of 60 percent under the previous rules.

Ramirez said the commission is inviting “the same cookie-cutter, same old, same old subdivision that you see in most sprawling communities.”

The 2050 rules largely apply to rural properties, most of them east of Interstate 75 and outside the county's “urban service boundary” where water, sewer and other government services are concentrated.

The plan was adopted a decade ago as a compromise between rural land owners seeking to develop their holdings and growth control advocates worried about suburban sprawl, environmental impacts and the cost to taxpayers of providing government services in rural areas.

With 2050, landowners gained the ability to build traditional subdivisions on properties that were largely zoned for agriculture, but they agreed to adhere to higher standards of development.

The uneasy truce fell apart recently after developers began complaining that the 2050 regulations were too restrictive and economically unfeasible. They argue that changes are needed to encourage housing construction and help spark economic growth.

A more pro-business County Commission has been supportive of the economic development argument.

But as the 2050 revisions proceed, they could become increasingly controversial.

The next round of proposed changes includes a provision allowing developers to count lakes constructed for drainage purposes as open space, leading to less land set aside for conservation.

Commissioners also are considering loosening a requirement that developers pay for infrastructure such as roads and utilities. A consultant's report panning the “fiscal neutrality” rule has been widely criticized as ideologically biased, leading to more skepticism of the 2050 revisions.

“I am concerned about some of the things on the list,” Patterson said.

<p><em>SARASOTA COUNTY</em> - The overhaul of Sarasota County's growth management rules for rural areas began Wednesday with changes that will usher in more strip mall-style commercial development and similar houses while weakening requirements for open space. </p><p>County commissioners voted unanimously to approve seven revisions to the 2050 growth plan, originally designed to encourage more compact, walkable developments that preserve large tracts of green space while clustering a variety of housing styles around a town center. </p><p>The County Commission also set the stage for more 2050 changes, voting to hold a public hearing on 17 other amendments to the plan.</p><p>Growth control advocates said the revisions approved Wednesday will make Sarasota County a less desirable place to live. But supporters said they preserve the principles of good urban planning while allowing developers more leeway to meet market demands.</p><p>“I'd like to have 2050 have a real chance to work because I like the basic tenets of it,” said Commissioner Charles Hines. “But it has to be flexible so it will work, and what we've just done right here, I think, allows for that flexibility.”</p><p>One of the most significant changes approved Wednesday is to the commercial development regulations in 2050. Landowners will be able to move their shopping centers to major roads on the periphery of a development, a shift back to strip centers and away from downtown-style “New Urbanist” communities.</p><p>Critics said the change goes against the concept of creating more convenient, walkable developments that minimize congestion on major roadways by offering commercial pockets inside neighborhoods.</p><p>“With the commercial center on the edge, you will have more traffic and more cars on the road,” said Lourdes Ramirez, a neighborhood activist who is running for a county commission seat.</p><p>But even Commissioner Nora Patterson, the strongest advocate on the commission for preserving 2050, said the village center rule “was always a little questionable” and voted to discard it.</p><p>The former owner of a gardening store on Osprey Avenue, Patterson said she understands the argument that businesses need drive-by traffic.</p><p>Commissioners also loosened a 2050 provision forcing developers to immediately record a conservation easement on a portion of their land.</p><p>Instead of a 1,000-acre conservation easement on large “village” projects, developers can set aside 750 acres initially and decide later where the additional 250 acres will be preserved.</p><p>County planners noted in a report that the change could lead to a more “piecemeal” approach to conservation that is less beneficial to the environment. Large, unbroken tracts of land are generally more desirable for preservation, and if the final phases of a development are not completed there is no guarantee the additional 250 acres will be preserved.</p><p>The commission also reduced the number of housing styles required in 2050 communities, allowing developers to build more identical homes derided by some as “cookie cutter” and unattractive.</p><p>Smaller “hamlet” developments will now be required to have two housing styles instead of three, while larger village developments can have five housing styles instead of six. Additionally, individual neighborhoods within a village must now have three housing styles instead of five and up to 75 percent of the homes in a neighborhood can be one housing style, instead of 60 percent under the previous rules.</p><p>Ramirez said the commission is inviting “the same cookie-cutter, same old, same old subdivision that you see in most sprawling communities.”</p><p>The 2050 rules largely apply to rural properties, most of them east of Interstate 75 and outside the county's “urban service boundary” where water, sewer and other government services are concentrated.</p><p>The plan was adopted a decade ago as a compromise between rural land owners seeking to develop their holdings and growth control advocates worried about suburban sprawl, environmental impacts and the cost to taxpayers of providing government services in rural areas.</p><p>With 2050, landowners gained the ability to build traditional subdivisions on properties that were largely zoned for agriculture, but they agreed to adhere to higher standards of development.</p><p>The uneasy truce fell apart recently after developers began complaining that the 2050 regulations were too restrictive and economically unfeasible. They argue that changes are needed to encourage housing construction and help spark economic growth.</p><p>A more pro-business County Commission has been supportive of the economic development argument. </p><p>But as the 2050 revisions proceed, they could become increasingly controversial.</p><p>The next round of proposed changes includes a provision allowing developers to count lakes constructed for drainage purposes as open space, leading to less land set aside for conservation. </p><p>Commissioners also are considering loosening a requirement that developers pay for infrastructure such as roads and utilities. A consultant's report panning the “fiscal neutrality” rule has been widely criticized as ideologically biased, leading to more skepticism of the 2050 revisions.</p><p>“I am concerned about some of the things on the list,” Patterson said.</p>